This invention relates to an intervertebral fusion implant. The class of implements to which this invention pertains serve to stabilize adjacent vertebral elements, thereby facilitating the development of a bony union between them and thus long term spinal stability.
Of all animals possessing a backbone, human beings are the only creatures who remain upright for significant periods of time. From an evolutionary standpoint, this erect posture has conferred a number of strategic benefits, not the least of which is freeing the upper limbs for purposes other than locomotion. From an anthropologic standpoint, it is also evident that this unique evolutionary adaptation is a relatively recent change, and as such has not benefitted from natural selection as much as have backbones held in a horizontal attitude. As a result, the stresses acting upon the human backbone (or “vertebral column”), are unique in many senses, and result in a variety of problems or disease states that are peculiar to the human species.
The human vertebral column is essentially a tower of bones held upright by fibrous bands called ligaments and contractile elements called muscles. There are seven bones in the neck or cervical region, twelve in the chest or thoracic region, and five in the low back or lumbar region. There are also five bones in the pelvic or sacral region which are normally fused together and form the back part of the pelvis. This column of bones is critical for protecting the delicate spinal cord and nerves, and for providing structural support for the entire body.
Between the vertebral bones themselves exist soft tissue structures—discs—composed of fibrous tissue and cartilage which are compressible and act as shock absorbers for sudden downward forces on the upright column. The discs allow the bones to move independently of each other, as well. The repetitive forces which act on these intervertebral discs during repetitive day-to-day activities of bending, lifting and twisting cause them to break down or degenerate over time.
Presumably because of humans' upright posture, their intervertebral discs have a high propensity to degenerate. Overt trauma, or covert trauma occurring in the course of repetitive activities disproportionately affect the more highly mobile areas of the spine. Disruption of a disc's internal architecture leads to bulging, herniation or protrusion of pieces of the disc and eventual disc space collapse. Resulting mechanical and even chemical irritation of surrounding neural elements (spinal cord and nerves) cause pain, attended by varying degrees of disability. In addition, loss of disc space height relaxes tension on the longitudinal spinal ligaments, thereby contributing to varying degrees of spinal instability such as spinal curvature.
The time-honored method of addressing the issues of neural irritation and instability resulting from severe disc damage have largely focused on removal of the damaged disc and fusing the adjacent vertebral elements together. Removal of the disc relieves the mechanical and chemical irritation of neural elements, while osseous union (bone knitting) solves the problem of instability.
While cancellous bone appears ideal to provide the biologic components necessary for osseous union to occur, it does not initially have the strength to resist the tremendous forces that may occur in the intervertebral disc space, nor does it have the capacity to adequately stabilize the spine until long term bony union occurs. For these reasons, may spinal surgeons have found that interbody fusion using bone alone has an unacceptably high rate of bone graft migration or even expulsion or nonunion due to structural failure of the bone or residual degrees of motion that retard or prohibit bony union. Intervertebral prostheses in various forms have therefore been used to provide immediate stability and to protect and preserve an environment that fosters growth of grafted bone such that a structurally significant bony fusion can occur.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,505,732, No. 5,653,762, No. 5,665,122, and No. 5,683,463 describe different prior spinal implants. The implant shown in U.S. Pat. No. 5,483,463 is hollow and tubular, with communicating windows in the top and bottom surfaces. External ribs, which may be serrated, stabilize the implant once it is inserted between the vertebrae. In U.S. Pat. No. 5,665,122, an intervertebral cage is rendered expandable by a wedging mechanism. The degree of expansion is rather limited, however. U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,653,762 and 5,505,732 show shaft-type tools used for installing implants. The prior devices do not enable one to achieve great ranges of implant height, or to adjust taper angle for kyphotic and lordotic situations.
Limitations of most present-day intervertebral implants are significant and revolve largely around the marked variation in disc space shape and height that results from either biologic variability or pathologic change. For example, if a disc space is 20 mm in height, a circular implant bridging this gap requires a minimum diameter of 20 mm just to contact the end plate of the vertebral bone. Generally, end plate disruption must occur to allow a generous bony union, meaning that an additional 2–3 mm must be added on either end, resulting in a final implant size of 24–26 mm. During implantation from an anterior approach (from the front of the body), excessive retraction (pulling) is often required on the great blood vessels which greatly enhances the risk of devastating complications such as vascular tears or thrombosis. On the other hand, during a posterior approach, large implant diameters may require excessive traction on neural elements for adequate placement, even if all posterior bony elements are removed. In some instances, an adequate implant size cannot be inserted posteriorly, particularly if there is a significant degree of ligamentous laxity requiring higher degrees of distraction to obtain stability by tautening the annular ligamentous tension band. Compromising on implant size risks sub-optimal stability or a loose implant, which has a greater chance for migration within or expulsion from the disc space. The alternative of excessively retracting neural elements to facilitate a posterior implant application results in a neuropraxia at best and permanent neural damage at worst.